NBU won land plots from Lagun over Delta Bank refinancing debts

NBU won land plots from Lagun over Delta Bank refinancing debts

07.09.2020 The Pechersky District Court of Kyiv satisfied NBU's claim against Mykola Lagun (in case No. 757/14039/18-c) and, as partial repayment of Delta Bank's refinancing debt (in the amount of 233 million UAH), decided to enforce recovery on a number of land plots in Crimea.

We add that 28.12.2017 the Kyievo-Sviatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv region satisfied NBU's claim against M. Lagun (in case No. 757/31527/15-c) and decided to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff a number of land plots in Crimea and Kyiv region.

05.07.2018 The Kyievo-Sviatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv region satisfied NBU's claim against M. Lagun (in case No. 369/1161/17) and decided to seize a land plot in Kyiv region.

Earlier NBU informed that M. Lagun was a property guarantor for Delta Bank's refinancing debts in the amount of 766,9 million UAH.

According to NBU data, at the beginning of December of 2019 the total Delta Bank refinancing debt amounted to 4,9 billion UAH.

Context

As Finbalance wrote, 16.10.2020 the Supreme Court refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of the Deposit Guarantee Fund and left unchanged the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv dated 16.09.2019 and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dated 27.11.2019 (in case No. 910/7186/19), which had granted the application of the former top managers of the bankrupt Delta Bank and dismissed the Deposit Guarantee Fund's suit against them seeking damages in the amount of 19,83 billion UAH.

Among the defendants in that case are, among others, the former chairman of Delta Bank's supervisory board, its former majority shareholder Mykola Lagun, as well as former members of the bank's management board and supervisory board (Olena Popova, Vitaliy Masyura, Figlus Marcin, Yaroslav Porokhnyak, etc.).

The Deposit Guarantee Fund motivated its suit by claiming that, in the years 2012–2015, Delta Bank, through its management, engaged in “economically unjustified risky activities by conducting active lending operations to corporate borrowers with excessive concentration, without proper collateral, and also in the interests of the bank's substantial owners, which indicates the schemed (artificial) nature of such operations, the sole purpose of which was to cover previously issued loan funds, as well as further withdraw funds through nonresident banks, which was not aimed at making a profit” (quote).

The courts of first and appellate instance concluded that joint consideration of the claims filed by the Fund “would impede clarification of the mutual rights and obligations of the parties and would substantially complicate the resolution of the dispute, since in this case, during examination of the case, the court would have to assess the terms of each of the concluded loan agreements, establish the circumstances of compliance, performance/non-performance by the parties of the terms of these agreements, the purposes and circumstances of their conclusion, as well as the correctness of the amounts claimed for recovery” (quote).

The Supreme Court also decided that “the plaintiff violated the rules for joining claims” (quote).

Earlier the Deposit Guarantee Fund had estimated possible losses to Delta Bank's creditors “as a result of bringing it to bankruptcy” (quote) at at least 24,5 billion UAH.

At the same time, the Deposit Guarantee Fund stated that the market value of Delta Bank's assets was determined by independent appraisers at 27,4 billion UAH, or 30% of the amount stated “on paper” as of 01.01.2017 (94,27 billion UAH).

As of 01.10.2020, depositors of Delta Bank were paid compensations within the guarantee amount totaling 15,9 billion UAH (97% of planned payments).